What CPU for a new high end system?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sentry11

Member
Jun 11, 2006
41
0
0
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Sentry11
Now, why do I get a P45 or why I do get an X48? What are their differences?

Really, the only substantial difference (to the end user, besides the $100 price difference) is that the X48 runs Crossfire with 16x + 16x PCI-E 2.0, vs. the P45 running Crossfire in 8x + 8x PCI-E 2.0. Note that the P45's Crossfire is still the equivalent (bandwidth-wise) of 16x + 16x PCI-E 1.1, since PCI-E 2.0 has twice the bandwidth of PCI-E 1.1. Oh, and if you're sure you aren't going to be running Crossfire (two ATI video cards), then definitely get the cheaper, more mature P45-- it's 16x PCI-E slot runs @ 16x, as long as you're only using one card.

Now considering the 4870X2 is quite expensive in termsof $550 despite I can afford it, if I deploy P45 which as you said is 16x PCI-E would I lose any bandwidth to X48 and does PCI-E 1.1 matters much compared with PCI-E 2.0?

 

Sentry11

Member
Jun 11, 2006
41
0
0
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: DonInKansas
Why don't any of these reviews ever cover 1680x1050? Are 22" widescreeens that uncommon?


edit: Oh yeah, I forgot something. The lower the resolution, the more CPU-bound you are with any game. So, with a video card review, you aren't comparing CPU's, you're comparing video cards, it really only makes sense to use higher res. Sucks for those of us who game @ lower res., though, doesn't it?

Hey
I read this somewhere. It was a properties of nVidia card. But I find the same for ATi card too. Could you remind me of the theory behind one more time?
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
Originally posted by: Sentry11
Now considering the 4870X2 is quite expensive in termsof $550 despite I can afford it, if I deploy P45 which as you said is 16x PCI-E would I lose any bandwidth to X48 and does PCI-E 1.1 matters much compared with PCI-E 2.0?

Hah, sorry, I completely forgot about this thread.:eek: For most cards, it won't make any/hardly any difference. But for the GTX280 and especially the 4870X2, it will make a big difference. You'll want either the X48 or the X38, for a 4870X2. They both have 16x + 16x PCI-E 2.0. So, if you want to save a bit of money (especially if you won't be overclocking your CPU much/any), then you'll want an X38 board.

Could you remind me of the theory behind one more time?

Well, the higher the resolution, the harder the video card has to work. Video cards display pixels (that's pretty much all they do), and if you double or triple the amount of pixels they have to display, then you ~double or triple the workload on them. The workload on a CPU @ ultra-high resolution (say, 2560x1600) isn't much more than it is @ 1280x1024, even though your video card(s) are having to work ~3x as hard, compared to 1280x1024.
 

Sentry11

Member
Jun 11, 2006
41
0
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Well it depends on the gpu you choose. If you buy a 4870x2 . You need a quad core as these cards limit the cpu performance and in most cases the FPS will increase with clocks . 4 core intels are the magic here.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=5

I guess you mean a Q6600. But I would think all this time, that a quad CPU will not be fully utilised because it depends on the application. It's up to the application to make use of the cores isn't it?


 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
C2D vs. C2Q cpu scaling

For the most part, unless you are gaming at 1024x768, the choice of any modern Core 2 cpu has little impact on gaming performance as you become GPU bound in a lot of situations. There will be specific games like Mass Effect where minimum framerates will be bounded by CPU speed or Microsoft Flightsim X where a quad core provides a significant boost or situations where dual-graphics card setup performs best with the fastest CPU.
But if you don't want to mess with overclocking, get E8500 and put the rest into a faster graphics card like GTX 260 or HD 4870. If you intend to keep this system for a while just like you kept your Pentium D, then I'd get the quad instead. In 2 years a 4.2g dual core will have no chance against a 3.4-3.6ghz quad core if we go by history of X2 vs. single A64.

i don't know .. would you pair HD4870x3 with an e4300 [1.8Ghz] at stock speeds?

:confused:

Why are you confused? Did you read my response fully? When did I say E4300 @ 1.8ghz is "modern"? You can buy an E5200 for $90 and that's 2.5ghz...
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Originally posted by: jaredpace

from that article:
"The Verdict

So then, the hardcore truth today is a very simple fact: you'll gain a better bang for buck in your games from a faster clocked dual-core processor opposed to having a somewhat slower clocked quad-core processor. "

I don't think I said anything contrary to this statement? I said your choice of any modern CPU for single cards doesn't have a significant material impact on performance - those benchmarks are not comparing a 3.2-3.4ghz Quad to a 4.0ghz Dual which will both be more than fast enough for any single card setup today. So if he doesn't want to tamper with overclocking, I said to get an E8500. I am not saying E6300 1.86ghz is modern or that I am recommending he gets a Q6600 at 2.4ghz vs. E8500 at 3.16ghz. If he intends to overclock, I would recommend a Quad @ 3.2ghz-3.4ghz over any overclocked dual core if they are priced similarly from a longevity perspective for the next 2 years. Obviously someting like a 4.0ghz E5200 for $90 is a superior value proposition.

Also, they aren't showing what happens when you goto 4300mhz:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_9.html#sect0

What's the point of linking useless CPU scaling benchmarks?

1. They are at 1024x768 which no one in the world will play at with a $200-300 processor and a GTX 260 or 4850 for that matter.

2. In situations where C2D at 4.3ghz is measurably faster you have Quake 4 and HL2 where frames for a 3.5ghz C2Q are in the high 180s range. For real world purposes there is no playbility difference between 250 and 150 frames, unless there is a material impact on minimum framerates, which we can't infer from those graphs.

3. In situations with more graphics heavy games like World in Conflict and Crysis, I wouldn't call a C2D at 4.3ghz "faster" as it doesnt' provide any more playability than a 3.5ghz Quad or more playability than a 3.16ghz E8500 either. In any case, this still doesn't take away that C2D provides the best bang for the buck for games if we look at today. But with this logic one would just purchase the E5200 for $85 :)

The point is, a dual core is adequate today for most games. Just don't forget the X2 3800+ 2.0ghz vs. A64 4000+ 2.4ghz scenario. Go to Gamespot and check any modern game and you'll see that 20% performance back then means nothing today. Today, some X2 users are still enjoying last 1-2 gpu upgrades on their 2.6ghz X2s - Example 1 - COD4 1280x1024 X2 2.0ghz = 48fps vs. A64 2.4ghz = 26fps So to recommend an E8500 which might clock to 4.0ghz+ over an equally priced Q6600 which can clock to 3.4ghz (~20% slower) might not necessarily be the smartest move either. As long as the OP understands this and buys a dual core, it's all good.

But don't you think you should provide all sides of the situation so that the OP makes the decision based on all the facts?
 

Cheex

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2006
3,123
0
0
Hey Russian, I must be overlooking all you just said but....which one are you rooting for....Dual or Quad??

:confused:
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
Well i guess nobody will know until someone runs a benchmark of a 4.3ghz dual vs. a 3.6ghz quad with plenty of high-res gaming. Theoretically multithreaded games should scale properly like COH does in that legionhardware article with twice the performance when you go from 2 -> 4 cores on the cpu. However, the fact is that less than .1% of games actually do that, even now that quads have been around for a couple of years. Whos to say that won't change in the next year or so. So who knows? Russian, that bench of the single core vs. dual core A64 makes a great point.
 

Auggie

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2003
1,379
0
0
I decided to go with the cheaper C2Duo chip for my new build. Follow my logic.

1.) C2D is cheaper than quad.
2.) As of this moment, for all that I'm interested in, C2D differs little from quad in its performance.
3.) From what I'm reading, it seems like Core2 Quad chips will be very, very cheap by the time true multi-threaded applications and games begin using them.
4.) At that time, I can swap in a Quad chip that's much faster than the current Quad chips in my LGA775 slot. Thus saving myself money now and over the long-term, with little to no loss in computer performance. And hell, depending on how much they can push the C2Quad architecture, the final few chips may offer some actual longevity that is significantly better than the Q9xxxs that are out now. Even if they don't push the chips much faster, I can upgrade to one of the final quad core chips when it's $50 instead of $550...

Note that it's up to the user to know what he'll (she'll) be using his computer for in #2 above... if you're a resource dumbass and like to have 3 Office applications, Firefox, Winamp, PS, and a game open at the same time, the Quad is a safe bet now. As for myself, I'm a minimalist - I have a primary application open, and Winamp, and that's it. Considering the fact that multiple cores equate only to increased scalability (you can open 2x the number of processes and have them spread out over more chips) and not parallel processing of single programs for truly punchier computation, the choice for a Duo is easy for me. Hope this helps the OP.
 

Sentry11

Member
Jun 11, 2006
41
0
0
Originally posted by: Auggie
I decided to go with the cheaper C2Duo chip for my new build. Follow my logic.

1.) C2D is cheaper than quad.
2.) As of this moment, for all that I'm interested in, C2D differs little from quad in its performance.
3.) From what I'm reading, it seems like Core2 Quad chips will be very, very cheap by the time true multi-threaded applications and games begin using them.
4.) At that time, I can swap in a Quad chip that's much faster than the current Quad chips in my LGA775 slot. Thus saving myself money now and over the long-term, with little to no loss in computer performance. And hell, depending on how much they can push the C2Quad architecture, the final few chips may offer some actual longevity that is significantly better than the Q9xxxs that are out now. Even if they don't push the chips much faster, I can upgrade to one of the final quad core chips when it's $50 instead of $550...

Note that it's up to the user to know what he'll (she'll) be using his computer for in #2 above... if you're a resource dumbass and like to have 3 Office applications, Firefox, Winamp, PS, and a game open at the same time, the Quad is a safe bet now. As for myself, I'm a minimalist - I have a primary application open, and Winamp, and that's it. Considering the fact that multiple cores equate only to increased scalability (you can open 2x the number of processes and have them spread out over more chips) and not parallel processing of single programs for truly punchier computation, the choice for a Duo is easy for me. Hope this helps the OP.

You learn something new every day don't you? Actually Company of Heroes is my favourite games. Glad to know also, concurrent processing are based on processes.

I personally prefer no CPU swap over time. Let's say I have been using E8500 for 2 years and an advanced CPU came out. I think I will replace the motherboard as well. A motherboard is perhaps the most worn out component of a system specially the capacitors. Surely the productivity and performance will be lowered over a period of time like 2 years. You don't really want to have an uneven performance due to the degraded performance of used capacitors and the south and north bridge chipsets.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Originally posted by: Cheex
Hey Russian, I must be overlooking all you just said but....which one are you rooting for....Dual or Quad??

:confused:

It depends on the types of applications you are running today. For games, the best bang for the buck is probably going to be E5200 overclocked. But if I was comparing say $180 E8500 to $180 Q6600, I'd personally choose the quad core since I'd rather have a 3.4ghz quad than a 4.2ghz Dual. Again, if you are running a multiple-gpu setup (such as GTX 280s) that needs the fastest cpu speed to not be held back, then for games the dual @ 4.2ghz is the way to go. But I also encode movies in DivX so I have bias ;)

However, if I were to purchase today and hold the cpu for 2 years, I'd get the quad. I also consider the recovery cost when I end up selling my computer. Considering a 3.2ghz Quad costs $1,450 on Newegg right now, what do you think I can get for my Q6600 @ 3.4ghz? A lot more than I can get for an E8500 @ 4.2ghz. Every person's decision choices will be driven by a variety of factors (i.e. Some people are concerned with having the fastest gaming performance period and are less concerned since they upgrade more often than 2 years apart).
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
C2D vs. C2Q cpu scaling

For the most part, unless you are gaming at 1024x768, the choice of any modern Core 2 cpu has little impact on gaming performance as you become GPU bound in a lot of situations. There will be specific games like Mass Effect where minimum framerates will be bounded by CPU speed or Microsoft Flightsim X where a quad core provides a significant boost or situations where dual-graphics card setup performs best with the fastest CPU.
But if you don't want to mess with overclocking, get E8500 and put the rest into a faster graphics card like GTX 260 or HD 4870. If you intend to keep this system for a while just like you kept your Pentium D, then I'd get the quad instead. In 2 years a 4.2g dual core will have no chance against a 3.4-3.6ghz quad core if we go by history of X2 vs. single A64.

i don't know .. would you pair HD4870x3 with an e4300 [1.8Ghz] at stock speeds?

:confused:

Why are you confused? Did you read my response fully? When did I say E4300 @ 1.8ghz is "modern"? You can buy an E5200 for $90 and that's 2.5ghz...

2.5Ghz is not enough for a 4870x2

Not for *gaming* - period :p
 

Sentry11

Member
Jun 11, 2006
41
0
0
Okay gentelmen,
Thanks for your input! Truly appreciate!
Now that we have decided on the CPU E8500@4.2GHz(non-overclocked), I have a budget like $1,500 so for motherboard I will have an X48 chipset board for the HD 4870X2.

Next tell me about the memory? DDR2 or DDR3? What timmings, which brand?
 

Auggie

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2003
1,379
0
0
Oh man, at some point, you need to buck up and just go read the other forums. Almost all of them have stickied topics at the top that answer questions like that, Sentry11.